Nikon Z6/Nikon Z7 question

[Talos]

Thank you very much again guys!
It is of course a matter of each's one's personal needs and likes.

@MNglass thanks for the further explanation. If you can't say the difference at the same oversample situation between the Z6 and Z7 then its good enough for me. I guess the more wise option would be to go with the Z6 as the price difference is significant. If the image quality difference is not significant between the 24-70 f/4 zoom and the prime 50mm then I agree it looks a bad idea to lose the deal. Its hard choice since to me Primes had always had the top quality compared to zooms. Besides the F/1.8 allows for some amazing bokeh portraits. Anyways, the big choice I had to make is first the camera and I based on your input guys, seems that there is no benefit if I don't plan to use the extra resolution doing large prints or crops.

@Clix Pix I agree with you. I like to have a more good for everything type of camera if possible as I do not focus on a specific type of photography, so I try to figure out the best of all words (if that is possible). Thanks for the useful input!

 

[Talos]

Okay, I have a good comparison to demonstrate what I said on the first post:

I take these images from this page:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6...dynamic-range-impress-but-not-without-caveats

I attach two images, from the same field at ISO 1600 from the Z6 and Z7.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...3Key=9d447a2270544613925f580d0dcb4e7a.acr.jpg

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...3Key=e4e366fe816c4abd936afa378cd06be4.acr.jpg

If I download these two images and open them with my Windows Photo viewer, so that both are fullscreen and I switch between the two, I can clearly see more detail on the Z7 image. It's slight but its there. At the same time I can see that the Z6 has much lower noise. Also the Z7 image has more moiré at the fine line patterns when I see both images at the same frame, due to not having a AA filter.

So I hope you can see my point now.

So I think for a range of ISOs the sharpness of the Z7 wins. After a point the low noise of Z6 becomes more important. Then one has to consider the better 4K video of the Z6 plus the smaller file sizes and of course lower price.

 

[Mike Buckley]

So I hope you can see my point now.

If you showed me photos taken by the two cameras in the field or the studio rather than laboratory shots of the kind you would never, ever make unless you wanted to prove a point to yourself and perhaps others, I would see your point of view. With apologies, otherwise, I really don't see your point of view.

By the way, I didn't even try to determine if I could see the differences; that's simply not my approach to photography. It's fine if it's your approach, but it strikes me that this type of comparison is causing you a bit of agony when, ideally, the process of deciding which equipment is the best fit for you should be enjoyable.

I recently bought my first new camera in almost ten years. I compared the capabilities, costs and weights of about seven cameras made by about four companies. Not once did I make the sort of comparison you're making. That's because I knew all of the cameras I considered would produce very good to great results in all situations I would use them for.

I hope your approach works for you, but so far it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Otherwise, you would have been able to make a decision.

 

[Butlerkid]

Realistically, the biggest variable in creation of images is the person behind the camera.............. Microscopic examination of images from someone else are of little value. If you have already made up your mind, no point in asking for validation from others.

 

[JeeperDon]

Well said Mike [post #23]. Thank you.

 

[Cslucas34]

It seems most people here have recommended the Z6 however I am of a different mind set and I will try to lay out my thoughts in a clear manner for you. As someone who has shifted completely to the Z cameras and shoot professionally, my perspective may be a little different.

1) Most people when they are considering new gear fail to consider the long term. In other words, if you can afford it then the Z7 will provide you other benefits that you may want in the future, even though you may not need them at the moment. Chief among these is the increased resolution. Not only will this allow you to create larger prints (if you desire) but often overlooked is the added benefit of correcting composition in post BECAUSE you have those extra megapixels.

2) As for astrophotography, you said you are more on the “pro” end which means I suspect you are familiar with such methods as stacking, tracking, using flat frames, etc. if that’s the case, any slight differences between the two cameras for Astro would be negated. As is, without any advanced technique and I shot both side by side I was unable to create any noticeable difference between the two. It was only when I pushed them significantly in post where I noticed the Z6 was just slightly cleaner and only noticed when I was zoomed greater than a 1:1 ratio.

3) The 24-70 f/4 kit lens is; in my opinion, the best kit lens available without a doubt. It takes super sharp photos, it’s nice and compact, easy to carry, and is a significant bargain for the quality. I would recommend this to be the first lens you purchase as its focal range is acceptable for both landscape and portrait shots. Although it’s only an f/4 and most would consider this to be a “non professional” lens, in 99 percent of your shooting situations you will be able to compensate for that one stop of light difference very cleanly due to the new cameras ISO capabilities.

4) You had mentioned getting the 50 f/1.8 and this is the second lens I recommend people obtain. One of, if not THE best lens I have ever used. It’s optics are superb and shoots better than the Zeiss Otus at a fraction of the cost.

To summarize, I would recommend the Z7 with the 24-70 f/4 kit lens and the FTZ adapter. Maybe an extra battery. Then if you have more capital to spend, the 50mm prime.

 

[Talos]

@Mike Buckley I understand your point. However its impossible for me to find comparable photos as they have to be the same frame, same lens, same lighting. If I post some comparisons and say to me the Z7 looks sharper there will be argument "yes but they are not on the same focal length" etc. So the only comparable shots can be laboratory shots, or field/studio shots made for this purpose.

I guess you may call me pixel peeper. My point of you is simple to understand. These cameras/lenses cost a significant amount of money. I am not a professional photographer that will going to get this paid off and I will not probably buying a camera for the next 10 years, so I want to make the best selection. If the different in image quality is worth it, I'd wait a little more to get the Z7. If its not worth the difference, I'd rather go with the Z6. Some people are easier to decide, some other people like to over-analyze and comparing the finest details.

But I certainly can see that both cameras have terrific image quality and for sure its the photographer's mind that will make the good shot in the end. I know that very well.

 

[Talos]

@Cslucas34 thank you very much for giving me a structured reply. I haven't thought the future proof factor of the higher megapixels. I see there is a trend on camera manufacturers to increase megapixel count however the large pixels have still the advantage of lower noise. I like that we agree on the lenses priorities. Your vote for the kit lens as other have suggested allow me to trust it.

@gchappel I forgot to personally also thank you for your very helpful input.

Guys I don't want to bother you more with my dilemma. Thank you again so much all for your time to read and reply.

I will for sure make a better decision after I have heard your views and experience. Not only as the specs go but as your photography philosophy.

 

[Clix Pix]

The bottom line here really is, what do YOU want to accomplish with your photography? How do you want to approach the subjects which you most tend to shoot? We still don't know for sure what your real interests are, and that does make somewhat of a difference when it comes to choosing a camera body and lens(es). What works really well for a landscape photographer may not be all that well[-suited to the kinds of images a portrait photographer is looking to achieve. Someone whose main interest is in macro and closeup photography is going to be looking for a camera body and lens(es) which work especially well in shooting that kind of subject. So a big question to ask yourself and answer for yourself is, what kind of shooting brings you the most pleasure? Why?

Sometimes it takes a while -- maybe even years -- before someone really lands on the kind of shooting which really pleases them the most and for which also their particular skill set and technique is really well-suited. For most of us, although we are of course "gear-heads" to a certain extent already, and naturally we want to know about the latest and newest thing in camera gear and photography in general, in the end it is what we shoot while out in the field or at home, what we look at in the VF and the LCD screen and later on the computer monitor screen, and what we may or may not do in post-processing with the image(s) that really matters, is most important to us. Having the right tool(s) to achieve our goal(s) is important, which is why it is worth taking the time to assess what kind of camera body and lens(es) one thinks he or she really needs to achieve specific aims, specific types of results.

Then analyze the products available that would fulfill most, if not all, of those requirements. If a particular product line is really strong in the kinds of gear wanted, take a closer look, try things out, then go from there. If the product doesn't feel quite right, then move on to something else. No charts or endless photos of brick walls can substitute for how a camera body and lens(es) feel and function in one's hands. Are the buttons and dials placed in positions which feel natural, comfortable and easily reachable, adjustable? Is the camera body well-balanced with whatever lens(es) are placed on it? Is the range of lenses available in the product line going to work with the particular needs you have?

For many of us, it may not even be the final result from a day of going out with the camera that is as exciting and interesting as the actual process of shooting..... Also. it's not always the gear that is most important; as I've mentioned earlier, too, sometimes one can get a real kick out of an amazing image shot with a cell phone, as the resulting image nails what was interesting and appealing about the subject at the time of shooting it.

I'm not one who is a "pixel-peeper;" I'm really not the least bit interested in charts with all sorts of numerical data, or bunches of photos of brick walls; I look at various real-life images of real subjects shot by cameras and lenses and also read comments and reviews by others, but in the end, it's when I hold a camera body in my hands and put a lens on it and start shooting in my preferred style, aiming at my preferred subjects, that I know for sure whether or not I made the right choice. I don't expect perfection -- I aim for satisfaction and genuine delight and pleasure in what I've shot. For me, that's what this photography thing is all about.

 

[Palouse]

I'd suggest studying the charts at https://www.photonstophotos.net

 

[gchappel]

Jay Maisel was a true mentor to me. Wonderful teacher.
He once said- and I paraphrase- I am not concerned about the pixels, I am concerned about the picture.
Following some of the arguments about equipment and sharpness I see on the internet, I would have to assume that no decent photography was even possible until now. Older cameras and older cameras are much less advanced than today's equipment, and the newest and best is necessary to make great art. I guess I should just take my images and books from Heisler, Bresson, Wegmen, Adams, etc and just throw them away, as the equipment they used was sub par.
Pick whatever camera you want, it really doesn't matter. Lenses make some difference, much more than the camera. They change the field of view, depth of field, color rendition and sharpness much more than the camera body. What really matters is the nut behind the camera. If you have something to say, I really enjoy looking at your images. If not, to quote Adams "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
I moved to an entirely new system last year- nikon to sony. I moved for health/vision reasons. Did it change my work at all? NO. The camera is newer. The lenses measure sharper than my old nikon primes. Can I tell the difference? Maybe. What I found interesting is no one else can tell. The gallery I hang at has never said a word. People that buy my large prints can not tell. In 20+ shows no one has ever said a word about sharpness, noise, grain. Never once. They may like the work, they may not. But no comments about quality.
Buy what you want, but do not expect it to change your art. It is not that easy.
Gary

 

[Mike Buckley]

@Mike Buckley I understand your point. However its impossible for me to find comparable photos as they have to be the same frame, same lens, same lighting.

You seem to have missed my point. It's fine if you choose to disagree with the point I was making. Indeed, I encourage that kind of scrutiny. However, to completely miss the point isn't helping you.

 

[JeeperDon]

Talos, you made your point. You asked for opinions. You got opinions. Relax. Get a beer. Watch some Netflix.

 

[Mike G]

Thanks again very much guys!

@Mike G , I am from Greece ( Talos is a forum nickname - was an ancient mythic robot )
I am thinking to purchase from Amazon.de as it seems to me to be the best combination of reliable store/good price. Its around the same price if I purchase the kit lens or the body with the 50mm 1.8 S. I'm thinking that the 2000$ 24-70 f/2.8 would be a more mature future proof option if I want one zoom, but on the other hand its a huge cost for a similar image quality with the kit lens. Its a valid point to not lose the kit lens, I tend to agree.

@Palouse I agree! I will also certainly purchase the small-rig L-bracket, looks a nice addition to the system for rigidity and protection.

You should be able to get a good deal in Europe!

 

[Talos]

Guys I am extremely pleased and grateful for your inputs. I want to personally thank each one.

The Cafe is an excellent place to be to discuss such matters. I understand there is a difference in approach as to what I ask and what most of you are saying.

Maybe my different approach has to do that I come from the science word of using CCDs (observational astrophysics) where you have to be a pixel peeper if you want to extract the most useful information out of a set of images. I understand that photography being more art than science relies more on the impression it does to one's brain rather than being a numerical evaluation. However, these advances in the photography art, we should not forget came after numerical, scientific reasoning made possible by optics/electronics engineers. Sometimes, when I look at a landscape shot by the Nikon Z7 I feel astounded by the level of spatial resolution I can see on a distant mountain, or a close cliff where I can discern individual stones and I think "wow, the resolution is crazy in this camera". On an image from 1950s I may not have seen this, and I would still be immersed in the atmosphere of the image but in another way. I am sure as technology advances we will be immersed in different ways. Today ,we may think that this is the end, but in 50 years from now the technology may have advanced in a way that the Z7 is not as immersive to the eye anymore as to the level of the best camera of 2070. Its hard to believe, but we should always be open to what better technology can do in our photos.

Regarding my type of shooting to answer @Clip Pix , I don't have one type of shooting. What I usually do is landscapes, street type photography and portraits.

I don't print large, but even if I want once to print a photo large, the Z6 wouldn't stop me. I have printed astrophotos from my 8MP CCD that I liked at 24'x30' prints (at 300dpi would be 11'x8') and they look fine. You have to go to 20cm eye-distance to start feeling that you could see more resolution if it was there. But of course in large prints the Z7 would offer extra sharpness that to the trained eye would be there to spot.

To sum up, I am still not 100% which camera I'll go to. But I am leaning towards the Z6. You certainly helped me put my arguments into perspective of actual world usage and appreciation and the examples of @gchappel was very eye opening.

I will surely let you know when I get the camera, as you have spent enough your precious time trying to help me and I very grateful to each one of you. Thank you again!

 

[Mike Buckley]

Best of luck in your decision, Talos. Whatever you decide, I hope it works out really well for you, as that is the only thing that matters.

 

[Mike G]

I sympathise Talos, as I’m quite an expert at umming and aghing over my buying decisions, terrible in fact.
Have a look at the website of Matt Irwin from Melbourne, who is quite a fan of the Z cameras!

 

[Talos]

Thank you Mike! I'll certainly have a look at it : D

 

[acnomad]

@Talos, I'm late to this discussion but can add this: 18 months ago, I agonized over the same decision, and ended up buying both a Z6 and a Z7.

I would tag myself as an "advanced amateur" and a "pro" in astrophotography (through telescopes) so I enjoy searching small pixel details in photographs.

When I had both bodies, I did devote a night to some side-by-side astrophotography testing which may be of interest to you (see below).

High resolution cameras also come with many additional costs. They cost more to purchase. Images cost more to store, as they use more room. Post processing takes longer- costing you time.

These were extremely relevant factors to me.

I'm in the Z6 camp here, and I have both (don't ask).

Now I have to ask!

if you can afford it then the Z7 will provide you other benefits that you may want in the future

I suspect you are familiar with such methods as stacking, tracking, using flat frames, etc. if that’s the case, any slight differences between the two cameras for Astro would be negated.

Both really important points. For my part, I'm happy to wait for the next generation high-res mirrorless offering. For now, I don't really benefit from the additional pixels.

I have printed astrophotos from my 8MP CCD that I liked at 24'x30' prints (at 300dpi would be 11'x8') and they look fine

Here's the thread with results of my quick-and-dirty astrophotography comparison between the Z6 and Z7:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/z7-and-z6-for-astrophotography.315352/

 

[Mike G]

I recently bought my first new camera in almost ten years. I compared the capabilities, costs and weights of about seven cameras made by about four companies. Not once did I make the sort of comparison you're making. That's because I knew all of the cameras I considered would produce very good to great results in all situations I would use them for.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Mike, almost any modern digital camera will take pretty good photos, so it’s down to the handling mostly as they are also begging to look very similar very similar!